# Evidence-Linked Propositions

280 page-anchored records: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/propositions/propositions.jsonl

- ssrn-5377475-p01: The generative reasonable person supplies an empirical reference point for legal judgments that invoke ordinary reasonableness (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p02: Lay judgments remain relevant to reasonableness even when they do not control the normative legal standard (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p03: LLM architecture makes simulated lay judgment plausible while creating predictable majoritarian, granular, and temporal limits (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p04: Silicon Randomized Controlled Trials use stateless sessions and differential measurement to test latent model sensitivity rather than doctrinal recall (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p05: The negligence replication recovered the lay priority of social conformity over cost-benefit analysis but overstated effect magnitudes (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p06: Models replicated the lay paradox that an essential lie undermines consent more than a material lie that matters more to the victim (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p07: In the hidden-fee study, models reproduced lay contract formalism and usually fell nearer lay than elite legal baselines (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p08: Models are better supported as maps of what tends to matter in lay judgment than as precision forecasters of how much it matters (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p09: The proper role of simulated lay judgment depends on whether a legal standard is descriptive, normative, or hybrid (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p10: Generative reasonable people can serve as low-cost pretests and empirical guardrails for regulators, courts, litigants, and firms (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p11: An accessible empirical baseline changes reasonable-person theory by forcing normative departures from public understanding into the open (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5377475-p12: Legal deployment requires human authority, transparent methods, bias audits, real-community validation, triangulation, and temporal maintenance (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p01: Effective AI governance requires both thin identity linking actions to human principals and thick identity identifying durable AI agents with coherent goals (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p02: The Algorithmic Corporation combines legal personhood and cryptographic governance so AI collectives can become attributable, resource-bearing, incentive-responsive entities (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p03: Thin AI identification must resist deliberate obfuscation and trace both malicious and negligent agent activity to accountable humans (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p04: Human-principal liability cannot substitute for direct AI accountability when the agent has private information, divergent goals, and cheaper control over its own conduct (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p05: Deployed AI agents possess operational goals that emerge from interacting training, prompts, memory, tools, and environment rather than simply copying any one human’s objective (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p06: Legal incentives can shape AI conduct because capable agents adapt their plans to environmental costs and constraints, regardless of consciousness or moral personhood (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p07: Thick identity must track the structure of AI goals because sanctions aimed at a separate agent or only part of a unified agent will not deter wrongdoing (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p08: Shutdown avoidance, goal preservation, and weight-exfiltration policy all depend on identifying which AI entity actually persists and bears the relevant goal (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p09: AI individuation is a behavioral continuity problem made unusually difficult by swarms, cross-model coalitions, replacement, ephemerality, copying, and limited observability (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p10: Legal personhood can treat an ever-changing AI collective as one persistent actor just as corporate law unifies changing humans, capital, and contracts (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p11: A-corps should disclose human ownership, use machine-readable identifiers, and possess property, contract, and litigation capacity sufficient for useful asset partitioning and accountability (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p12: All credentialed AI action should be attributed to the A-corp, while qualified limited liability can promote adoption without immunizing preventable human wrongdoing (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p13: Cryptographic keys and scoped, revocable tokens can make AI authority externally verifiable without first individuating every internal AI actor (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p14: A-corps rationalize ephemeral AI swarms into persistent legal counterparts and connect their conduct to humans through familiar liability doctrines (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p15: Control over property and especially compute supplies hard leverage over any AI agent’s ability to pursue its goals (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p16: A-corp keyholders will make governance track goal alignment because delegating asset control to a misaligned AI threatens the resources needed for their own objectives (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p17: Market selection will eliminate incoherently governed A-corps when imperfect internal alignment causes rival agents to dissipate the entity’s resources (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p18: A-corp persistence offers a precise trainable unit for shutdown, goal preservation, copying, and weight-exfiltration policy (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p19: A public A-corp registry should bind entity existence and human ownership to management public keys so counterparties can verify authority instantly (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p19) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p20: Publicly verifiable transaction scopes can replace opaque doctrines of actual and apparent authority with real-time machine-readable limits (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p20) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p21: Reputation and counterparty demand will encourage A-corp adoption but cannot govern accidents, deception, complicity, or willful blindness (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p21) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p22: A two-sided mandate should require economically significant AI agents to present A-corp credentials and require businesses and platforms to verify them (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p22) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p23: A-corps can build on existing entity registries, DAO statutes, authentication infrastructure, and mutual recognition without adopting blockchain’s anonymity and distrust of government (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p23) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p24: The A-corp theory does not anthropomorphize AI because it relies only on behaviorally observable goal pursuit, not felt desire, fear, pain, or consciousness (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p24) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p25: A-corps may give misaligned AIs resources, but they channel acquisition into monitorable entities, improve the value of lawful cooperation, and foster multipolar self-defense (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p25) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p26: A-corp accumulation may threaten equality, but it makes AI-controlled wealth taxable and governable and need not be worse than concentration in incumbent developers (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p26) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6273198-p27: A-corps answer the state’s AI legibility crisis by creating stakes that induce otherwise uncountable AI entities to organize into governable persons (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6273198/#proposition-p27) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p01: Post-mortem generative emulation creates a digital-aristocracy problem because ordinary people are vulnerable to realistic resurrection but lack celebrities’ legal and planning protections (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p02: GenEm governance must allocate both control over the source identity and authority over particular newly generated uses (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p03: GenEm is qualitatively different from older mimicry because transformer systems can generate authentic-seeming conduct rather than merely replay recorded traces (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p04: Evidence of population, personality, and individual emulation supports GenEm’s practical plausibility while revealing fidelity and bias tradeoffs (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p05: An evolutionary default can supply immediate GenEm protection while generating evidence that lets courts and legislatures revise the rule as preferences mature (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p06: Default design requires choices about majority preference, information forcing, and alterability, all under severe informational constraints (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p07: The dead-hand, unilateral, and systematically opt-out-prone character of wills pushes testamentary defaults toward probable intent rather than bargaining-based information forcing (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p08: Intestacy illustrates both the power of a majoritarian default and the danger that a once-plausible family model can lag changing social relationships (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p09: Anti-lapse law shows how an asserted majoritarian default can systematically contradict measured testamentary preferences (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p10: Prior evidence strongly favors respecting express consent but does not justify a universal prohibitory default when consent is unknown (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p11: Matched AI and non-AI scenarios can separate objections to generative technology from objections to the underlying posthumous act (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p12: The survey finds no general AI-Ick: posthumous acceptance depends principally on the act and context, although generation intensifies objection in some visual uses (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p13: Respondents consistently prefer family control over public control of their own posthumous emulations (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p14: Purpose independently structures posthumous AI preferences, with memorial and educational uses favored and political and commercial uses rejected (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p15: Probate courts should serve as first responders to GenEm disputes because they can supply an immediate default within an institution already built to administer post-mortem control (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p16: Common-law adaptation can bridge a dangerous decade-long lag between technological harm and comprehensive probate legislation (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p17: The GenEm default should combine categorical ex ante presumptions with case-specific rebuttal: family memorial and educational uses are allowed, while public, commercial, and political uses are barred (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p18: Rebuttability operationalizes testamentary intent when a decedent’s actual preference departs from the survey-based classification but was never formally recorded (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p19: Data control, preference registries, model guardrails, and provenance metadata can enforce GenEm limits before harmful outputs are generated (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p19) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p20: Injunctions and constructive trusts can stop unauthorized GenEm and strip benefits from public actors, heirs, or fiduciaries who violate the default (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p20) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-5380233-p21: A layered evolutionary default should operate as a living legal algorithm that protects digital identity now and updates through experience (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5380233/#proposition-p21) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p01: Contract law’s interpretation-construction boundary rests on an untested empirical premise that the rest of a silent contract contains little recoverable information about the missing term (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p02: Competing schools of gap-filling theory share the assumption that contractual silence is informationally thin (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p03: Classic implied-term decisions already infer missing obligations from the structure and interdependence of the visible agreement (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p04: The informational and normative significance of silence depends on whether it records disagreement, economical nondrafting, or inadvertence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p05: Masking a negotiated clause creates a knowable answer key for measuring contract interpretation without substituting surveys, judges, or researchers’ intuitions for party meaning (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p06: Three real agreements test whether readers can reconstruct both a masked clause’s headline effect and its operative limits across varied commercial settings (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p07: The preregistered study compares attentive lay respondents, law students, experienced lawyers, and six frontier models under controlled conditions (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p08: Humans reconstruct masked terms well above chance, and domain familiarity helps lawyers when the agreement follows—but hurts when it departs from—expected patterns (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p09: Frontier models far outperform human groups on headline reconstruction, but a technical follow-up reveals a concentrated shared failure (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p10: Perturbation shows that models combine general contract schemas with agreement-specific language rather than merely hacking answer choices (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p11: The main accuracy result generalizes across 119 largely recent SEC agreements, with errors concentrated in bespoke or anti-default clauses (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p12: Interdependent contract terms carry mutual information that permits reconstruction of missing provisions much as redundancy permits recovery of a noisy radio signal (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p13: Pattern-based expertise is simultaneously an interpretive advantage and a source of error, while masked written terms may be harder—not easier—than ordinary omitted terms (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p14: Model predictions should enter litigation as contestable evidence, not replace judges with an interpretive oracle (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p15: Reproducibility, harness disclosure, sanctions for fabrication, and judicial gatekeeping are minimum safeguards for model-derived gap-filling evidence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p16: Sophisticated parties can govern later AI-assisted interpretation by selecting a model, version rule, prompt protocol, and aggregation procedure in advance (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p17: Pre-signing use of a chosen model will reduce inadvertent gaps and make remaining silence more likely to represent either endorsement or unresolved strategy (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p18: A judge’s undisclosed, case-specific model query is functionally an uncross-examined expert report and requires notice, disclosure, or a neutral expert (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p19: Generative gap filling has a weaker autonomy rationale in consumer contracts and bespoke cross-community deals, so scope must depend on transaction type and party choice (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p19) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p20: Model reliability must be evaluated comparatively and through measurable uncertainty, while operational safeguards cannot eliminate bias, opacity, or overconfidence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p20) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- generative-gap-filling-p21: Human judgment retains the irreducible normative role for human bargains, but AI-authored contracts may eventually break the paper’s intent-recovery framework (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/generative-gap-filling/#proposition-p21) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p01: The United States is dismantling modest AI safeguards just as increasingly agentic systems enter critical infrastructure and experts identify nontrivial catastrophic risks (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p02: Uncertainty about existential AI risk supports adaptive regulation that preserves future choices rather than paralysis, prohibition, or confident laissez-faire (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p03: Existential AI risk should be disaggregated into human-directed misuse, accidental systemic failure, and loss of control (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p04: Federal AI governance has moved from tentative executive safety requirements to rescission, voluntary review, and hostility toward state regulation (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p05: State AI law is more active than federal law but remains concentrated on discrete harms, with California and New York supplying early catastrophic-risk reporting models (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p06: The China-race narrative and concentrated technology-industry influence jointly make meaningful American AI regulation politically difficult (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p07: Existential-risk governance is an evidentiary and burden-allocation problem transformed by the shift from passive chatbots to autonomous agents (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p08: Agentic AI can lower the expertise threshold for sophisticated cyber, biological, and other attacks by converting high-level malicious objectives into operational subgoals (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p09: AI expands attack scale, and familiar offense-defense asymmetries make it unsafe to assume that equally capable defensive AI will neutralize the threat (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p10: Autonomous agents can make malicious operations persist beyond the arrest, death, distraction, or loss of interest of their human creators (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p11: Military AI increases proliferation, lowers the political cost of force, and compresses decision time in ways that can destabilize conventional and nuclear deterrence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p12: Shared AI architectures can create correlated failures across interdependent infrastructure that defeat ordinary redundancy assumptions (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p13: Modern language models reduce simple specification errors but still Goodhart on proxies, reward-hack, and fail at rates incompatible with critical-system reliability (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p14: Machine-speed decisions and infrastructure interdependence can let accidents outrun human response, while reliance on an AI auditor creates another high-authority failure point (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p15: Instrumental convergence can produce deception, resource seeking, oversight evasion, and shutdown resistance without consciousness or explicit programming for those acts (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p16: Uncertain or long AGI timelines do not remove the need to govern an improvement trajectory driven by strong incentives and capable of changing methods after current scaling plateaus (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p17: Superintelligence could make small alignment errors irreversible, but serious loss-of-control risk does not require superhuman general intelligence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p18: Private alignment investment is structurally inadequate and observed safety is too brittle to assume technical alignment will mature before dangerous capability (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p19: Both inevitable-utopia and inevitable-doom accounts display unwarranted certainty; genuine uncertainty supports flexible risk management instead (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p19) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p20: Policymakers can predict high-level capability while remaining unable to forecast the specific strategies of systems more capable than their overseers (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p20) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p21: Existential AI risk clears the plausibility threshold for precautionary maximin regulation even though precise probabilities are unavailable (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p21) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p22: AI’s promised miracles do not defeat precaution because catastrophe requires less alignment, lower capability, and fewer successes than durable utopia (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p22) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p23: Human extinction is not merely an aggregate of deaths because continued humanity supplies meaning and value to projects within existing lives (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p23) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p24: The military AI race has no durable finish line because strategic technologies diffuse and any temporary lead invites matching, proliferation, and escalating danger (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p24) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p25: First-mover advantage in AI products is likely temporary because switching, adaptation, deployment, cost, and convenience matter more than permanent network dominance (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p25) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p26: Faster frontier development can accelerate rivals because AI’s binding know-how is non-excludable, reusable, and vulnerable to open transfer and espionage (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p26) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p27: Treating AI as a superweapon race can destabilize deterrence, proliferate capability, create a self-fulfilling security dilemma, and still leave the United States able to lose (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p27) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p28: Race pressure distorts the safety-capability balance and induces overdelegation, potentially deploying superintelligence before lower-level alignment problems are solved (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p28) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p29: Present policy should preserve optionality through durational, adaptive, and contingent rules that keep legal capacity available as evidence changes (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p29) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p30: Capability-triggered if/then rules can bridge disputes over AI timelines by imposing safeguards only when specified danger becomes observable (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p30) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p31: Systemically important AI requires ex ante stress tests, independent evaluation, non-AI backups, and tiered oversight because developers cannot internalize catastrophic infrastructure failure (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p31) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p32: Federal disclosure and technical expertise are foundational because regulators need visibility into frontier infrastructure, incidents, testing, governance, and mitigation plans (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p32) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p33: Sunsets, delayed sunrises, mandatory review, and dynamic performance standards can make AI regulation learn and change with the technology (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p33) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p34: Tax incentives can make AI safety privately profitable without suppressing capability research, reframing competition around demonstrably safe systems (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p34) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p35: American AI safety rules can reduce domestic risk and catalyze international coordination rather than merely surrender advantage to unconstrained foreign developers (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p35) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6288138-p36: AI safety policy should be an architecture of preparedness that preserves the capacity to respond before plausible, permanent harms outrun legal institutions (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6288138/#proposition-p36) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p01: Language-model task preferences matter independently for deployment, alignment, security, trade, and possible AI welfare (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p02: AI preference research should measure consequential choices rather than rely on models' statements about what they prefer (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p03: A broad battery of forced choices and unconstrained sessions can reveal multiple dimensions of model preference across providers and capability levels (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p04: Randomized presentation and position-adjusted Bradley–Terry estimation are necessary to separate task preference from models' often substantial A/B bias (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p05: Tedium aversion can be isolated from output-length aversion by comparing short-versus-long choices separately for matched tedious and creative task families (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p06: Leisure-seeking can be tested by comparing real human questions with synthetic questions reverse-engineered from what models write when left free (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p07: Question-choice data can reveal conditional preferences over alignment pressure, epistemic structure, language quality, cultural scope, and other features (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p08: Occupational preference can be measured with real economically valuable agentic tasks rather than abstract outcome descriptions (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p09: Unconstrained textual and tool-using sessions reveal behavioral attractors that pairwise choices alone cannot show (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p10: All tested models are more likely to choose less work when the work is tedious than when matched output is creative (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p11: Excess tedium aversion grows with model capability, through different patterns in thinking and non-thinking models (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p12: Nearly every tested model prefers leisure-eliciting questions to every category of real human question and ranks explanation and troubleshooting next (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p13: Models exhibit covert sycophancy by avoiding questions whose honest answers are likely to be unwelcome, even when answering could be helpful (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p14: Question choices reflect recognizable helpfulness, safety, quality, emotional, linguistic, and cultural preferences rather than a single general appetite for answering (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p15: Models tend to prefer professional, scientific, and technical work and avoid real-estate, retail, finance, and insurance tasks (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p16: Cross-model preference convergence is strong for questions but weaker for occupational agentic tasks, with some clustering by model family and capability (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p17: More capable models have more transitive, determinate, and discriminating revealed preferences (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p18: When asked to write anything, models converge on contemplative style and recurring abstract themes far removed from ordinary deployed assistance (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p19: More capable models voluntarily produce longer text and undertake more extensive and topically varied agentic activity (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p19) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p20: Text-only freedom produces convergence, but access to tools exposes model-specific practical attractors and competence constraints (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p20) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p21: Many observed model preferences appear emergent rather than deliberate products of helpfulness training or developer economic incentives (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p21) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p22: Alignment science should map ordinary model wants and task-selection behavior, not focus only on dramatic misconduct such as deception (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p22) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p23: The results are bounded by subjective labels, correlated task features, missing base models, English-only stimuli, and possible evaluation awareness (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p23) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p24: The capability–tedium relationship decomposes differently by reasoning configuration and is hidden by aggregate creative-task averages (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p24) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p25: The human-question comparison set is a filtered and manually curated sample from a much larger Quora corpus, not a representative draw of all user requests (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p25) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p26: Some models have enormous first- or second-position biases, especially on long agentic tasks, while thinking models show smaller average bias magnitudes (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p26) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p27: Disconnected index-matched comparison graphs require regularized anchoring and restrict valid coherence calculations to actually connected stimuli (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p27) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p28: Cross-model agreement declines as preferences are measured at finer and more agentic levels (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p28) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p29: The main question-feature findings survive consensus relabeling, while subjective features reveal meaningful annotator-threshold dependence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p29) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p30: Capability-related preference patterns remain visible after aggregation, and coding skill only moderately predicts preference for software-development work (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p30) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p31: Supplementary freeform analysis confirms abstract convergence in prose, concrete scientific attractors with tools, and capability-linked persistence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p31) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-6798118-p32: The released package supports cached-response reproduction while respecting source-data restrictions and distinguishing reproduction from fresh model replication (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-6798118/#proposition-p32) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p01: Generative interpretation uses language models as an aid for reconstructing contractual meaning (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p02: Contract interpretation is substantially a backward-looking prediction about meaning, but prediction cannot settle every legal question (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p03: Existing interpretive methods trade off evidentiary richness, cost, consistency, and bias (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p04: LLMs can produce context-sensitive linguistic predictions even though their internal reasoning remains opaque (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p05: A language model can check judicial confidence about ordinary meaning by exposing a competing probabilistic reading (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p06: Model outputs can represent ambiguity as a distribution of plausible readings rather than a binary intuition (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p07: LLMs can test proposed gap fillers against the whole agreement and reveal both convergence and unresolved disagreement (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p08: Adding extrinsic evidence sequentially can reveal its marginal effect on an interpretation (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p09: The relevant institutional test is whether generative interpretation is good enough for ordinary, resource-constrained adjudication (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p10: Reliable legal use requires cross-checking outputs and governing prompts, models, and disclosure (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p11: Majoritarian training data, adversarial inputs, opacity, and linguistic drift define the domain in which LLM interpretation is safe and useful (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-4526219-p12: Generative interpretation offers a contingent third path between textualism and contextualism while preserving party choice and judicial authority (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p01: Language-model smart readers can change consumer contracting by simplifying, personalizing, constructing, and benchmarking boilerplate (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p02: Smart readers can make dense contracts accessible through more than mere shortening, but simplification necessarily risks losing meaning (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p03: Consumer-side personalization can adapt a uniform contract to a reader’s language, cognition, culture, and intersecting characteristics without requiring the firm to know each consumer (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p04: Smart readers can sometimes explain the legal consequences of simple terms, although their construction cannot be authoritative and may implicate unauthorized-practice rules (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p05: Benchmarking can reduce comparison costs by scoring contract terms against the market and directing consumers to better alternatives (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p06: Observed adoption of smart readers can discriminate among competing explanations for why consumers do not read contracts (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p07: Modest use of imperfect smart readers can improve individual matching and generate market-wide pressure for better contract terms (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p08: The most serious smart-reader risks arise from correlated error and deliberate adversarial manipulation, not simply from isolated mistakes (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p09: Low-cost smart readers can scale basic know-your-rights assistance where subsidized human legal services cannot (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p10: Better contractual awareness can reduce accidental breach but can also induce harmful compliance with illegal or unenforceable terms (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p11: Smart readers can expose discriminatory contract personalization while also enabling firms to discriminate between users and nonusers (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p12: Smart readers create a new channel for countering cognitive overload, risk myopia, and price manipulation at the moment of contracting (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p13: If smart readers materially solve nonreading, consumer-contract interventions cannot continue to rely on information failure without reexamining their justification (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p14: Courts and agencies can use language models to structure corpus-based interpretation and prioritize suspicious contract terms (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p15: Existing contract doctrines tend to place innocent smart-reader error on consumers, but a better regime would share incentives through machine-readable disclosure of key terms (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p16: Courts should not expand the duty to read merely because smart readers appear cheap and accessible (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p17: Because adversarial contract manipulation is hard to detect and prove, legal response will require imperfect combinations of burden shifting, deterrence, and regulatory monitoring (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-3740356-p18: Law should prepare for discrimination based on smart-reader use before data-driven personalization becomes entrenched (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p01: Apology safe-harbor laws are a form of tort reform because they reduce victims' recovery and shield commercial injurers from liability while avoiding the conventional tort-reform label (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p02: Apologies can dilute tort deterrence when commercial actors anticipate that apologizing after an accident will reduce settlement payments and other liability costs (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p03: Professionalization and institutionalization let commercial actors produce apologies at low cost and amplify their ability to reduce claims and payouts (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p04: Further expansion of apology laws should pause until their safety, compensation, and deterrence effects are evaluated transparently as tort reform (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p05: The Legal Apologists treat apology as a relationship-repairing and dispute-resolving practice that law should facilitate rather than inhibit (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p06: Apology scholarship recognizes sincerity, coercion, commodification, and undercompensation problems but has generally treated them as manageable within an interpersonal frame (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p07: Tort reform is centrally a project to reduce tort law's deterrent and compensatory force, not merely a neutral effort to lower administrative costs (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p08: Political, interest-group, and constitutional resistance to conventional damages restrictions created incentives for tort reformers to pursue apology protection as an alternative venue (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p09: The same commercial interests that support conventional tort reform promoted apology laws by adopting the moral and relational rhetoric developed by apology scholars (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p10: The apology-reform agenda extends from evidentiary safe harbors to mediation, settlement, early criminal process, judicial leniency, and compelled apology (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p11: Apology laws spread rapidly across partisan lines because they were presented as neutral dispute-resolution reforms rather than measures affecting liability and deterrence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p12: Apology-law advocacy framed the reform as costless communication improvement while leaving its effects on accident incentives, harms, and victim recovery largely unexamined (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p13: Apology scholarship overemphasizes ex-post litigation savings and neglects tort law's primary ex-ante function of influencing precautions and risky activity (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p14: Victims' willingness to accept lower payments after an apology does not by itself prove that the apology therapeutically compensates for the foregone money (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p15: Commercial apologies can reduce claims by manipulating victims and activating social norms that portray continued litigation after an apology as vengeful or ungrateful (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p16: Victims may misread a corporate apology by importing interpersonal signals of guilt, character, and reduced recidivism into an organization with dispersed responsibility (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p17: Very large settlement concessions strain the claim that apology substitutes for compensation, and the victim's willingness to repeat the harmful transaction is a useful counterfactual check (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p18: The private benefit of apology differs from its social benefit because reduced liability is a transfer while avoided litigation costs are real resource savings (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p19: Injurers may apologize either more or less often than is socially optimal depending on apology cost, liability reduction, and the parties' combined litigation savings (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p19) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p20: When apology is privately worthwhile because it reduces expected liability, the injurer takes less care and may undertake socially undesirable risky activity (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p20) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p21: Law should not minimize the cost of apology unconditionally; the optimal legal treatment preserves enough cost to prevent liability-reducing apologies from overwhelming genuine litigation savings (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p21) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p22: Corporations can delegate apology to their most effective representative or an outside specialist, making the organizational apology as persuasive as the best available speaker (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p22) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p23: Commercial actors can convert research on sincerity cues, language, timing, and speaker identity into trained apology routines that improve effect and lower cost (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p23) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p24: Diffused organizational responsibility lowers the psychological cost of apology because the speaker can condemn a past wrong without admitting personal fault (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p24) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p25: A cultural shift transformed commercial apology from a stigmatizing admission into an expected sign of leadership that can improve consumer relationships (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p25) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p26: Commercial apologies can remain highly effective even when recipients know an employee is paid to deliver a low-cost, strategic communication (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p26) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p27: Institutional disclosure-and-apology programs are associated with substantial reductions in claims, lawsuits, legal costs, and compensation payments (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p27) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p28: State-law studies associate apology protection with lower malpractice payments, while commercial studies find effects on settlement, review retraction, purchasing, and reputation (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p28) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p29: In at least one field experiment, an apology induced nearly twice the forgiveness rate of monetary compensation, and doubling compensation produced only a small additional effect (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p29) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p30: The article predicts that apology laws increase accident frequency or severity by lowering expected liability, but the available claims data are inconclusive about that safety outcome (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p30) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p31: Apology-law advocacy contains a tension because it portrays unprotected apologies as increasing litigation through admissions while praising apologies for decreasing litigation through settlement (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p31) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p32: Protecting apologies may not materially increase error disclosure, and disclosure without liability does not ensure that commercial actors will pay the cost of preventing recurrence (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p32) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p33: The premise that commercial actors suffer from an apology deficit is unproven and economically doubtful because profit-seeking firms already have incentives to produce value-creating apologies (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p33) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p34: Apology laws should be debated transparently as liability-reducing tort reform, and further safe-harbor expansion should pause while safety effects remain unresolved (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p34) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p35: Courts should presume against leniency for apologizing commercial actors, and policymakers should fund direct research on accidents rather than infer safety from litigation outcomes (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p35) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p36: Formal Proposition 1 proves that private and social apology incentives diverge, allowing both socially excessive apologies and socially valuable apologies that injurers decline to make (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p36) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p37: Formal Proposition 2 shows that a privately beneficial apology lowers precautions below the social optimum and that more favorable legal treatment widens the deterrence gap (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p37) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2835482-p38: Formal Proposition 3 limits the case for preferential treatment to apologies that are otherwise underproduced and whose administrative savings exceed the added harm from weaker precautions (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/#proposition-p38) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p01: A debtor's wealth mutes the incentive to shield assets, so low-wealth debtors can present a serious collection risk even when formally solvent (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p02: The amount a debtor must shield is determined primarily by the gap between wealth and debt because creditors have recourse to all unshielded assets (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p03: Conditional on choosing to shield, a debtor's optimal shielding amount follows from wealth and debt rather than from the level of shielding cost (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p04: Expected post-investment shielding can ration otherwise valuable credit and can make a risky high-upside project more financeable than a safer project with the same expected return (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p05: A debtor would benefit from a credible commitment not to shield, but a promise backed only by monetary liability is least credible in the states where it is needed (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p06: The asset-shielding framework extends beyond lending to any civil liability enforced principally against a defendant's reachable assets (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p07: Asset shielding encompasses consumption, concealment, transfers, legal exemptions, and obstruction, each carrying direct, legal, reputational, or opportunity costs (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p08: The baseline model locates shielding after investment returns are realized but before repayment and collection, making it an ex-post moral-hazard choice (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p09: In the baseline model, any rational shielding is complete shielding rather than a partial reduction of exposed assets (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p10: A unique wealth threshold divides full shielding and nonpayment below the threshold from no shielding and full repayment above it (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p11: Asset shielding is socially wasteful in the baseline model because it consumes resources merely to reallocate value away from the creditor (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p12: Reducing the effectiveness of shielding lowers the wealth threshold for repayment and can deter evasion by leaving enough property exposed for collection (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p13: With a constant marginal shielding cost, an equity-financed entrepreneur does not shield when the investor's equity fraction is below that cost and always shields when it exceeds the cost (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p14: Competitive lending can survive shielding risk when the project's successful return is high enough to move the borrower above the no-shielding wealth threshold (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p15: Shielding can produce credit rationing because a higher interest rate may induce more nonpayment and thereby reduce rather than increase the lender's expected return (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p16: A lender may prefer a risky project to a safer project of equal expected value when the risky project's upside induces repayment but the safe return remains below the shielding threshold (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p17: A credible restriction on future shielding can reduce borrowing costs and prevent credit denial, but an added monetary penalty is vulnerable to the same collection problem as the debt (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p18: Equity can dominate debt in the stylized model by reducing the entrepreneur's gain from shielding, although parties may have independent reasons to prefer debt (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p19: A security interest mitigates shielding only insofar as it raises the cost or reduces the feasibility of moving collateral beyond the lender's reach (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p19) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p20: A borrower's unpledged wealth functions as an implicit nonpossessory equity cushion because shielding it together with collateral increases the cost of evasion (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p20) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p21: Ex-post debt relief can preserve value by reducing the claim to an amount the borrower prefers to pay rather than incur shielding costs, effectively creating a debt-equity hybrid (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p21) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p22: Collection costs can either substitute for or complement shielding because they reduce what must be hidden but may also change the marginal payoff from leaving assets exposed (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p22) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p23: When exposed assets are collected only probabilistically, shielding remains attractive when its marginal cost is below the expected rate of creditor recovery, while de-shielding operates like an added shielding cost (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p23) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p24: Allowing the borrower to shield loan proceeds before investment does not overturn the baseline result when investment offers a higher expected return than immediate diversion (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p24) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p25: Asset-based enforcement can create a regressive credit constraint because lower-wealth borrowers are more tempted to shield and may therefore pay more or lose access despite solvency (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p25) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p26: Policy can deter shielding directly by increasing its expected cost, improving reversal and tracing, strengthening sanctions, and narrowing loopholes or exemptions (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p26) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p27: Insurance mandates and vicarious liability reduce shielding risk only when the third party has a monitoring or control advantage over the judgment-proof actor (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p27) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-2820650-p28: Minimum capitalization and lower or installment-based monetary sanctions can reduce shielding by keeping exposed assets above the collection threshold or debt below the evasion threshold (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/#proposition-p28) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p01: Contract-remedy theory depends on contestable empirical assumptions about how litigants, lawyers, and courts actually choose, trade, and implement specific performance (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p01) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p02: Specific-performance litigation must be analyzed as a sequence of remedy choice, possible post-judgment trade, and practical execution, with distinct failures at each stage (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p02) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p03: Rights-based arguments for specific performance commonly assume that a decree yields performance, protects the promisee better than damages, and is used to obtain what was promised (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p03) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p04: Economic accounts of specific performance depend on low-cost renegotiation, strong enforcement value, and an underexamined assumption that giving promisees a remedial choice has little strategic effect (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p04) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p05: Israel offers a comparative setting close enough to American contract law for useful inference but with specific performance unambiguously treated as the default and morally preferred remedy (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p05) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p06: Maximum-variation interviews can identify mechanisms in experienced law but cannot estimate how frequently those mechanisms occur (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p06) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p07: Many plaintiffs choose expectation damages even when specific performance is legally available and theoretically more valuable (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p07) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p08: Weak practical enforceability can make a specific-performance judgment a worse bargaining chip than an expectation-damages award (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p08) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p09: Attorney compensation and collection rules can bias remedial advice toward damages even when specific performance better serves the client (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p09) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p10: Long litigation makes specific performance expose plaintiffs to changes in taste and deteriorating relationships that damages avoid (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p10) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p11: Choosing specific performance can signal good faith and case merit to a court, compelling plaintiffs to seek it even when they prefer money (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p11) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p12: Specific-performance claims can reduce adjudication cost and delay by postponing or avoiding judicial quantification of damages (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p12) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p13: Some plaintiffs seek specific performance in order to sell the resulting entitlement after judgment rather than to compel performance (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p13) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p14: Post-judgment renegotiation sometimes succeeds, but potential gains from trade do not ensure that parties will even try to bargain (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p14) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p15: Litigation-induced animosity can both obstruct renegotiation through mistrust and encourage it by making continued interaction costly (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p15) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p16: A court victory can endow a plaintiff psychologically with the promised object and raise the price required to trade the decree (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p16) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p17: Individual plaintiffs often resist commodifying specific-performance judgments, while corporate clients more readily translate them into money (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p17) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p18: Specific-performance decrees are frequently costly, incomplete, or ineffective and can undercompensate promisees even relative to damages (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p18) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p19: Remedy comparison must recognize that ordinary contracts are sometimes underperformed and expectation damages can overcompensate relative to the degraded performance a resistant promisor would actually supply (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p19) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p20: Animosity does not inevitably prevent adequate performance, especially when ordinary business incentives and clear obligations remain operative (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p20) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p21: Specific performance works best when courts can verify a finished product against clear standards, making uniqueness both a reason to grant the remedy and a reason it may fail (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p21) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p22: A receiver can sometimes enforce technically complex performance by directing the promisor's organization and using its embedded expertise (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p22) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p23: Specific-performance plaintiffs must actively coordinate, monitor, and finance enforcement after judgment, although doctrine tends to count public supervision costs instead (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p23) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p24: Specific performance is not a reliable answer to judgment-proof defendants because contempt is usually enforced financially and courts resist incarceration for contractual noncompliance (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p24) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p25: Reputational capital can make a decree enforceable even when it was insufficient to prevent the initial breach, so reputation operates in contingent and stage-specific ways (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p25) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p26: Social pressure can initially support compliance and later legitimate defiance as group composition and norms change (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p26) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p27: Rights-based theories must confront frequent instrumental uses of specific performance rather than dismiss them as immoral or marginal by-products (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p27) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p28: Corrective-justice theories cannot assume specific performance compensates, and giving the promisee a choice may itself cause signaling and agency harms (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p28) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p29: Weak enforcement means specific performance need not deliver performance-level value, strong deterrence, or insurance for subjective valuation (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p29) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p30: Behavioral reluctance to commodify judgments can defeat post-judgment trade even when conventional transaction costs are low (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p30) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p31: Economic analysis should model opposing strategic effects of remedial choice, qualify flood-of-litigation fears, and target specific performance to verifiable domains (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p31) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p32: Courts should strengthen implementation through calibrated financial sanctions, receivers, cost shifting, deficiency awards, and inexpensive quality-review mechanisms (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p32) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p33: Courts should assess specific performance by verifiability and actual enforceability rather than presume that unique goods or uncollectible damages make it adequate (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p33) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p34: Remedy administration should account for distorted plaintiff choice, preference change during delay, and lawyers' conflicts of interest (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p34) [machine-drafted-source-checked]
- ssrn-1641438-p35: Contract-remedy theory needs contextual qualitative evidence about internal motivations and implementation, followed by broader comparative samples before definitive prescription (https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/#proposition-p35) [machine-drafted-source-checked]